Favorite Teams

Protesters chanted "No more killer cops" outside the Mark O. Hatfield U.S. Courthouse in downtown Portland last month as a federal judge took testimony from members of the public on the city's pending settlement agreement with the U.S. Department of Justice on a package of Portland police reforms.
(Maxine Bernstein/The Oregonian)

The pending settlement agreement between the city and the U.S. Department of Justice isn't "toothless'' and includes a "rigorous enforcement mechanism'' as it stands, argued the attorney for the Portland police union in a court filing on Tuesday.

The agreement calls for mediation between the parties if a dispute develops, and if unresolved, then court intervention.

This arrangement "minimizes discord among the parties that may result from an outside party forcing change on the City and its Police Bureau,'' wrote Anil Karia, attorney for the Portland Police Association.

Each party to the pending agreement, which calls for a series of reforms to Portland police policies, training and oversight, was asked to respond to 13 questions posed by U.S. District Judge Michael H. Simon after he heard testimony from more than 50 people in a day-and-a-half hearing last month. The settlement followed an investigation by the federal Justice Department that found city police engaged in a pattern or practice of excessive force against people with mental illness.

Simon asked the parties if any amendments should be considered, based on the public testimony.

Karia argued in his filing that any changes to the settlement would "upset the delicate balance struck by the PPA and the City."

"The settlement agreement does not present perfection, nor must it,'' Karia wrote.

Requiring the parties in the case to report periodically to the court on the status of the reform measures would require an amendment to the agreement, and nullify the existing settlement, Karia said.

He argued that the current Independent Police Review Division and Citizen Review Committee provides an adequate process for people to make complaints against officers. Any changes that could affect the police disciplinary process would have to be negotiated, he said.

Karia also contended that the bureau's 48-hour rule, which allows for officers to have 48-hour notice before they must be interviewed by bureau personnel, doesn't apply to criminal investigations, but does apply to non-criminal internal affairs investigations. He said changing it would require mandatory bargaining with the union.

Requiring Portland police to wear body cameras would also require mandatory bargaining, Karia said. He noted that the bureau already has video cameras in some of its patrol cars, which capture officers' interactions with the public.

"It hopes that the Parties will act as partners in that process, but firmly believes that the Court's active supervision and enforcement is necessary to reach that final goal,'' wrote J. Ashlee Albies, an attorney representing the coalition.

The changes to the Independent Police Review Division are inadequate, the coalition said.

"The community does not have faith in the current system,'' Albies wrote.

The coalition said it opposes the 48-hour rule and doesn't agree that the timing of interviews of officers who under are investigation is subject to mandatory bargaining. It also cited privacy concerns relating to the suggested use of body cameras by Portland police officers.

As of 6:30 p.m, attorneys for the city had not filed their response. An update will follow when it's filed.